"N.Y. State of Ming lyrics > Barry Bonds lyrics" ....obviously, what is your point?
All Falls Down lyrics > Ooochie Wally lyrics ...
Not saying Kanye > Nas, just that some of the justification on this thread is ridiculous.. calling Kanye shit when he is the one introduced Lu with Touch the Sky...
...lasers.

There's always a criteria with these types of questions, but whatever. I think Lu is in a league of his own sometimes, but there are people like Jay Elec, DOOM, Mos Def and even Blu that are lyrically comparable to him.

MALIK
This shit ain't about you!
I don't care what YOU are impressed by or what YOU see.
You trying to come off as if you have this ultimate, omega understanding of Lupe when you don't.
Because you don't see it how I do, then it can't bee seen because you don't see it that way. That the way you think it should be done is automatically better because it's better to You.
All I've been doing is explaining that Other people have Other thoughts.
Fuck what you're impressed by. I haven't been arguing that. I'm arguing the fact that there are other ways to look at things, and then be impressed.
Something being cliche = Non-subjective.
Somehitng being more straight forward = Non-subjective.
Something being predictable = Non-subjective.
It's fact. Familialarity, simplicity, and predictability are things that time and matter force upon objects in this realm. They're inescapable.
However!
Something being impressionable = SUBJECTIVE.
I would never go into an argument about your opinion.
However I am gong to step in when you have the audacity to tell me how to look at things with blanket statements based solely on what YOU think.
I've been defending what is able to be thought.
You've been defending what you think.
And you want examples that appeal to how and what you think in order for you to understand, when you've already summed up my thinking as something to dismiss and as "unimpressive".
Fuck you and what you think if you're going to act as if your opinion has more merit than mine, just because it's Your opinion.
You and Ian are both disgustingly self-centered and consequently - NARROW-MINDED.
Now go to your room you selfish, selfish, self-centered child.

There is no confusion because you're not saying anything. You've been repeating "me and some people get it". That's the beginning middle and end to what you're saying. And you're still assuming that I can't see it, based off the fact that I'm not impressed with it.

MALIK
Wow. Here we goagain.
Now you add "on the whole". Look nigga, you said his metaphors were shallow. That's what I've been addressing.
You just don't understand adjectives is all. That's your problem. I can't help you there.
You've beensaying they're shallow, as if that's the end all.
I'm saying that percievably, they're not.
But you probably didn't fully understand that because that's where the big bad adjectives raped your understanding. Nigga you got confused. And because you're confused, what I'm saying doesn't mean anything.
Basically, you're assuming that something isn't, when it is, but based on the fact that you don't get it.
I can't compliment that assumption in a fashion of vice versa because it would be foolish for me to be like, "Oh well because you can't see it, then you're right it can't be seen, Even though I can." That would be ignoring higher intelligence. And that's stupid.
You want that complimentary polarity. But that doesn't exist here.
Continuously finding and formulating logic based on your own inability to understand and process something is fucking stupid.
If we bound ourselves to that kind of thinking we'd all still be in caves because we would have had to stay behind with the slow heads.

You're terrible at examples, you know that right? Is English your first language? Honestly?
"You don't get to say Lupe's lyrics are shallow just because you think so. You're wrong.
And you're wrong because you're saying something isn't, when it percievably is."
Never once did I say Lupe's lyrics on the whole were shallow. And you do know you're begging the question right. You still haven't addressed why it isn't shallow. But you have no idea what I'm referring to so that's a lost battle.
"I identify the deeper, more purposeful meaning in his lyrics every time I listen to him. Entirely logically and sensically, with a foundationally sound and imaginatively constructive understanding."
Absolutely meaningless filth. Can you stop raping my language just because you want to throw every single positive adjective you can when talking about the lyrics.
"You don't get to debunk that because You can't see it."
There is nothing to debunk because you aren't making an argument. Stop assuming. Just because I don't agree with your position doesn't mean I can't "see" what he's attempting. You keep championing the fact that "my view" isn't the only one here, but you continue to contradict yourself by saying that "my view" isn't valid because of what YOU perceive and I think and know about Lupe's lyrics. Trust, there's a lot of "fail" going on in here, but it isn't coming from me.

What We Learned: It doesn't matter how somebody uses the principles of speech to describe, and paint pictures with words. They are all equally effective. Any artist who uses descriptive words is a great lyricist, and is just as effective in making their point no matter how they do it.

MALIK
Notice how there are three definitions. I'm not bound to the first and wasn't refering to it.
I used cliche to communicate familiarity.
Like I said, focusing too much on definitions rather than how the word is being used.
Straight-forward does not = less effective.
Cliche does not= less effective.
Having less depth does not = less effective.
Perdictability does not = less effective.
And I never suggested such. Ever. You just thought I did.
You downed Lupe's metaphors.
I told you that they work just as well as what you think could be more appropriate. Because your view isn't the only view there is.
You don't get to say Lupe's lyrics are shallow just because you think so. You're wrong.
And you're wrong because you're saying something isn't, when it percievably is.
I identify the deeper, more purposeful meaning in his lyrics every time I listen to him. Entirely logically and sensically, with a foundationally sound and imaginatively constructive understanding.
You don't get to debunk that because You can't see it.
It's your problem, not mine.
You :: "I can't do calculus, so it doesn't exist."
Me :: "Well I can do it. I understand it. So do a bunch of other people. So yeah, it does exist."
Fail. Again. And again. And again.

MALIK
Where do you get trite from cliche and predictable?
I didn't say it was less effective. I said it was cliche.
Not new does not = less effective.
That's something you came up with all by yourself.

"I think you're confusing lyricism with story-telling poetry. Like the cliche kind of poetry, the more straight-forward and almost predictable kind."
That was the very first thing you said. By calling something trite you are putting something below another. Of course I didn't give any examples from Lupe. That wasn't MY argument. That's your argument. My argument was that there are people more lyrically adept than Lupe and I gave a quick example with Ghostface because of the space alotted. It isn't my job to make your argument for you. If you believe that the metaphors are effective, you're supposed to present them not me. And you've still yet to address anything.

MALIK
Okay, that's all I needed.
I've told you that I haven't been putting metaphors above anything, just defending how they work in a powerful manner on par with the others that you suggest could be more appropriate.
You :: "Metaphors aren't always the most appropriate way to go."
Me :: "Okay, you're right. But here's how these metaphors in this instance work grandly, in a sense of summary.
The only reason anything could ever have any grounds is if it is justifiiably believable.
My views, as well as others views, regarding Lupe's lyrics are believable.
You want me to go into a specific set of lyrics. Well I've done that in my thread "Lupe the Emotional".
Check it out.
I didn't go into any specifics here because you gave none for me to address in the first place.
You just said that Lupe's lyrics were flashy and shallow. *Notice the lack of why, how, or in what instnace in that statement.
You're just spouting incomplete, blanket thoughts and statements.
That = Fail.
I'm done here.

I've never held one technique above any other as you have. I've said that the way one specific person (eg Lupe) uses, isn't in the most "lyrical" manner. So you're entire dialog there is based on a false premise. You didn't "explain" anything. You said that they had depth. You've made no argument. Simply stating things isn't making a case. Instead you've opted to misunderstand English as well as make up arguments on my behalf despite having no texts to back up those claims. You've been throwing out empty rhetoric from the off shoot with flowery words that hold little value and when contested you made no effort to try to back them up.
Argumentum ad populum are childish. Just because you and "many" people believe so doesn't give it any grounds. An opinion isnt valif by virtue of itself, nor is it valid because "many" people agree with you.

A testimonial defense of something doesn't = praise.
You've been wrong from the jump.
Its like ::
MALIK :: These sharpie marks on this art piece hold no value. Theyre shallow. But these colored pencil marks communicate more.
TAY :: Actually no they Do hold value, this is how.
MALIK :: Sharpies arent the best way to go about things, you know.
TAY :: Who said they were? Im just telling you how that they Do hold value, to me and others. Maybe not to everyone, but the fact that they communicate in this way to anyone at all does mean that they have the potential to do what I described, since they just did that for me.
MALIK :: But its not the best way to do something.
Of course hes right. But hes right because his statement is obvious and void of contextual consideration.
His point :: Lupe's metaphors are shallow.
My point :: No, they're not, atleast not for me. And because they aren't shallow for me, and a lot of other people, then you can't spread that blanket statement across the entire situation.

IAN
Would you Stop arguing minute aspects of what we've been talking about!
I know what he's been saying. This nigga isn't arguing anything. Hes arguing a broad statement, in a contextual argument, which makes what he said too obvious to mean anything regarding the specifics of what weve been talking about. His point is moot.
He's basing his entire reason for responding to me on the fact that HE thinks that I think metaphors are the Best way to texturize something. I never said that at all.
In the very beginning, this is what MALIK said ::
I don't think Lupe has much "lyrical competition" considering that not many rappers even care to lace their songs with metaphors on top of metaphors. But in a broader definition of "lyrical", Lupe isn't close to many peers, or past heroes.
For example, while clever in what is written, MAJORITY OF WHATHE SAID IS SHALLOW AND AT FACE VALUE. Sure breaking down to finding the references is cute and all, but THEY ARE ONLY THERE TO BE CLEVER. THEY HAVE NOOTHER PURPOSE THAN THAT.
I told him that his perception of Lupes metaphors was Wrong, and that they arent shallow and to be taken only at face value. And then I explained the depth at which Lupes metaphors communicate. Not could communicate, Do communicate. Because they do that for me, and for a hell of a lot of other listeners.
He went on to say that a metaphor may not be the best way to go about things, just like you said in my thread. But also like you in the other thread, he doesnt say how or in what instances.
Hes been arguing an empty point.
Sure, in general a metaphor wouldnt always be the best route to go, but I NEVER EVEN SUGGESTED THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE. I simply defended the metaphors that Lupe uses within the circumstances he chooses to describe. Because they work. Maybe not for everyone all the time, but like Ive been saying, I never ever even suggested that they were the supreme way of communicating.

If you're communicating something that doesn't mean someone understands. Communication doesn't not exist if the audience does or does not get it. I could be talking to someone in French, if they don't comprehend, that doesn't mean that they're not communiting. You have a terrible habit of applying positive extra definitions to words to support your argument, which they never do.
I've never said you you couldn't compare something tangible to something tangible, I'm saying you made a terrible example considering the better way to describe something that you can touch, smell, etc. would be to actually describe it because unless your example takes place in a vacuum the other human being would have some frame of reference to another fruit.
"All straight-forward means is literal, voidof metaphorical references. That's the only definitoin it has. You want another definition, but there isn't one."
There you go adding shit to definitions. All it is is being direct. You really should stop saying what you think I'm saying.
"I never said there was a difference between lyricism and being straight forward. I said there was a differnce between ebing straight forward and abstract. Lyricism is just the vessel."
This was the very first thing you said. vvv
"I think you're confusing lyricism with story-telling poetry. Like the cliche kind of poetry, the more straight-forward and almost predictable kind."

I don't even get how you got "he's saying it doesn't work" from his responses.
He said that, yes, metaphors DO posses communicative value, more so if applied appropriately. But he's also saying that, not in every circumstance does a metaphor hold the most communicative merit. Yes it does communicate SOME in certain instances, but that's not to say another principle of speech couldn't be applied to more effect.